Didn't they just close down all their nuclear power plants because they're too dangerous after Fukushima?
Building nuclear bombs doesn't seem like the next logical step.
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
207 points (98.1% liked)
Europe
4996 readers
1993 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in [email protected]. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @[email protected], @[email protected], or @[email protected].
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
You don't have to cool them. Freeer choice of location. I imagine a static good is much easier to safeguard and check.
Most of all, there's cheaper alternatives without a lot of surrounding questions. That's not the case for military deterrent.
load more comments
(1 replies)
First off. Way to make sure everyone “doesn’t look up” re climate emergency. There’s no amount of nukes we can build that are more powerful and can be secured enough against nature’s planned devastation in the next 30 years. But for some reason all this war talk shit is just a welcome distraction.
Second. This is the same like all these governments asking Apple and Signal to build backdoors. Once you have a backdoor, it doesn’t discriminate who passes through it. Build all the nukes you want, all European governments will slide towards trumpism in the next 10 years anyway, as European politics seems to copy USA and is more and more infiltrated by foreign powers (also just like USA). I’m sure all the mini-me Aldofs, Elons and Donalds will appreciate a freshly build slab of nukes to establish their tyranny.
Boy are we stupid. Just smart enough to know we’re a bunch of clothed idiots.
Tldr use a condom
Tldr use a condom
Instructions unclear, nuclear device now stuck inside condom.
Yep. Quick vapid internet comments that are a repeat of the same meme from the last 15 years is pretty much all we have left.
You’ve got one lucky wife.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Too expensive for the little benefit. Turkey for example has none, but one of the bigger armies in the Mediterranean and can still project power.
I'd also recommend to talk to Poland and France about this first, if only for historic reasons.
please dont
An EU nuclear weapons programme would be by far preferable, but that requires a common EU foreign and defence policy.
Not having any nukes won't work with the current state of affairs, except for enjoyers of being on the receiving end of nuclear blackmail by an orange muppet, his puppeteer in Moscow, and Winnie the Pooh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
Germany already has nuclear bombs
Those "German" nukes are a handful of US nukes for use by Germany under NATO's nuclear sharing policy, when approved by the US. With that orange muppet in the White House, Germany really hasn't any nukes it can count on, especially not for deterrence against the orange muppet's puppeteer in Moscow.
As if they even need to use them...
What does that have to do with the claim that they have nukes?
If they can't use them or only conditionally use them then they don't really have them.
The point of nuclear weapons is to have them to never have to use them, by scaring the shit out of potential enemies, so they don't even dare to attack.
But in order for the weapons to be a credible threat, and therefore a deterrent, their use must be possible.
Nukes that need authorisation by Donald Trump won't deter Vladimir Putin.
Nuclear sharing is the worst of both worlds. You make yourself a certain target, but you cannot exercise control over the weapons. It's turning MAD into SAD (self assured destruction)
Doubtful, given Trump's displayed reluctance to honour a defence treaty.
They just had an election where the second most popular party was an extreme-right-wing pack of lunatics. What happens when they win the next election?
You cannot afford to have nuclear weapons when you can't be sure who's going to have control of them.
If Putin and the USA already have them, isn't that hypothetical too far off when assessing risk?
There's a strong counter movement to the right. I'd rather have a strong deterrent against Putin than not. It's pretty obvious to me what the more immediate and more realistic risk is.
Germany has a really high chance of having a fascist party in government in four years. So the answer is a fucking resounding NO.